LibriumArcana.Games

A New Debate on Female Circumcision is the title of an article in the New York Times. It's too long to quote the whole article, and the commentaries are almost as interesting as the article itself, so I'll give you the first paragraph:

Should African women be allowed to engage in the practice sometimes called female circumcision? Are critics of this practice, who call it female genital mutilation, justified in trying to outlaw it, or are they guilty of ignorance and cultural imperialism?

Read it all and see what you think.

A note for thought. Before the feminist explosion of the 1960s, the group that did most to keep women in their traditional roles in society and else wise was... Other women.

This seems open and shut to me. Hell yeah we should be telling them what is acceptable. Moral relativism has been soundly defeated for centuries.

It is up to them whether they listen to us or not, but that shouldn't stop people from talking about it.

Of course, I am also against mutilation of boys here too. If adults want to do it to themselves (male or female), maybe, maybe there is a debate to be had there. But on children and babies? Hell no.

Destructionator XV wrote:Moral relativism has been soundly defeated for centuries.

It sure seems alive and well to me, considering the long and fierce arguments I've had with its proponents. If you can give me a proof of it's fallaciousness they'll accept, please, do so. I'd love to prove once and for all that their way of thinking is wrong - well-intentioned, I'll grant to any moral relativists who might be reading, but wrong nonetheless.

frigidmagi wrote:A note for thought. Before the feminist explosion of the 1960s, the group that did most to keep women in their traditional roles in society and else wise was... Other women.

It's still that way in most nations and cultures, but Lord protect you if you point that out!